FuriousFanBoys interviews Ben Goertzel regarding Artificial Intelligence. Ben started the OpenCog project (an open sourced AI non-profit), acts as an adviser to the Singularity University, and currently bounces back between Hong Kong and Maryland building in-game AI.

Independent decision making and deduction are not yet achieved by AI; and are definitely not described by consciousness.

Though if AI acquires consciousness then it might be easier to get to independent decision making and deduction.

Can we prove humans have independent decision making? Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, doesn't seem to think so. In fact, using fMRIs (or some other brain scanning I forget), scientists can predict the choices people make seconds before they make them.

Deduction, yes, but are we even sure how humans "deduce"? And human "deduction" is scientifically proven to be very error prone. Are we sure we want to judge AC?I by a provably bad intelligence?

I hate modern philosophers, especially when they use degrees in science to add credibility to what are essentially non-scientific premises. The concept of "free will" isn't something born out of science; it is something born out of philosophy. In this regard, it matters not that Sam Harris is a neuroscientist. He could be a janitor, and be equally prepared to answer the question.

I hate modern philosophers, especially when they use degrees in science to add credibility to what are essentially non-scientific premises. The concept of "free will" isn't something born out of science; it is something born out of philosophy. In this regard, it matters not that Sam Harris is a neuroscientist. He could be a janitor, and be equally prepared to answer the question.

Ah, so you subscribe to the whole NOMA nonsense? That some things just can't be answered by science. Why? BECAUSE. Why? BECAUSE WE SAY YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT WITH SCIENCE. WE WON'T ALLOW YOU.

Here's something to think about, if we allow the principle of non-overlapping magisteria, we are basically saying: for those questions we have yet to answer scientifically, we can basically make up any shit we want to answer it.

Like it or not, whether the concept of "free will" is a purely philosophical matter or not, the FACT is that neuroscientists can predict choices that people make seconds before they make them. Like it or not, that fact drags the question of free will at least partly into the magisteria of science. These are scientifically reproducible experiments and it really shows what you are that you claim that it is just an attempt to use a degree to add credibility to claims.

Sam Harris could be a janitor. It still won't override that neuroscientifc fact.

Individual level - yes, limited in scope. (Proof lies in the fact that a person can evaluate and select an appropriate food source, without prior knowledge of said food source)
As species - yes, unlimited in scope.

No AI can boast either, to my knowledge.

The main reason why is that we are building AI systems top down, most of the time. Watson is a good example of starting in the middle - logic is there, but not the data.

Deduction, yes, but are we even sure how humans "deduce"?

If we can frame it in some algorithmic way, then it would be great.

What I can say, is that the human brain is the ultimate pattern matching engine.

Individual level - yes, limited in scope. (Proof lies in the fact that a person can evaluate and select an appropriate food source, without prior knowledge of said food source)
As species - yes, unlimited in scope.

No AI can boast either, to my knowledge. "

Then how do you explain our "independent decision making" when neuroscientists can reproduce the experiment that allows them to predict a person's choice before it was made?

Even forgetting neuroscientific facts, it is clear from sociological studies that most humans don't use the full scope, individually or as a species, of what we consider to be the Ideal Independent Decision Making.

This goes right back to the link one of the other commenters included: the AI effect. All you really provide is a shifting goalpost of what you define as independent decision making, the end result being a definition that not even most humans can claim any significant accomplishment.

What I can say, is that the human brain is the ultimate pattern matching engine.

Actually, the evidence is that we're quite bad at it. We match patterns where there is none often to detrimental effect. Pattern matching is probably something we'll see computers being a lot better at than us in the next 1000 years.